Slip-Op. 05-21 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

BEFORE: GREGORY W. CARMAN

___________________________________ STRUCTURAL INDUSTRIES, INC., : : Plai ntiff, :

: v. : Court No. 00-00203 : UNITED STATE S, : : Defendant. : ___________________________________: [After remand from the Court of Appeals for the Fe deral Circuit, an evidentiary hearing, and review of the evidence, papers a nd arguments submitted by the parties, judgment is entered for Plaintiff as to the ta

riff cla ssificat

ion of ce rtain cli p frame s. Defe

ndant is di

rected to reliqui date the subject merchandise in accordance with this opinion.] Fitch, King

and Caffen tzis (Ja mes Caffe ntzis) , New York, New York, for Plaintiff. Robert D. McCallum

, Jr. , Assistan

t Attorne y G eneral ; John J. Mahon , A ct in g A tt or ne yin-Charge, I

nternat ional Tra de Field Office ; Jack S. Rockafellow , Attorney, Commercial Litig ation Br

anch, Civil Division, United Sta tes Depa rtment of Justice; Beth C. Brotman , Attorney, Off

ice of Assistant Chief Counsel, International Tra de Litigation, United States Customs Ser

vice, Of Counsel, f

or Defe ndant. Dated: February 15, 2005Court No. 00-00203 Page 2

1 Familiarity with this opinion is presumed.

2 The Unite d States Customs Servic e is now pa rt of the D epartme

nt of Home land Secu

rity and is known as the Bureau of Customs and Border Prote ction.

3 The Court notes that the subject merchandise was entered into the c ustoms territory of the United States during the y ears 1998 and 1999. As no changes we re made to the HTSUS tariff items under consideration during the period at issue, the Court ref ers only to the 1999 HTSUS for si mp li ci ty. O PINI ON C ARMAN , J UDGE : This case is before this Court pursuant to a remand ordere d by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAF C”). Structural Industries, Inc. v. United States , 356 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 1 The tariff classification of certain clip fra mes is at issue in this cas e. Struct

ural I ndustrie s, Inc. (“Pla

intiff”) challen ges the United Sta

tes Customs Service’s 2 (“Customs” or “Defendant”) classifica tion of the subject merchandise under heading 7013 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HT SUS”) (1999) 3 . 19 U.S.C. § 1202 (2000). Based upon findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth below, the Court enters final judgment for Plaintiff.

B ACKGROUND The subject merchandise is frames comprised of thre e components: a flat glass cover, a masonite b ack, and four metal clips. (Pl.’s Sta tement of Materia l Facts ¶ ¶ 2-3; De f.’s Resp . to Pl.’s Statement of Material Facts ¶¶ 2-3.) An imag e, which could be a photograph, picture, or other fla t item ( e.g ., a document), is placed between the glass cover and masonite back. (Def.’s Statemen t of Undisp

uted Mate

rial Fa cts ¶¶ 3- 4.) The me

tal clips, which fit

into gro oves cut i

ntoCourt No. 00-00203 Page 3

4 HTSUS heading 7013 covers “glasswa re of a kind used for . . . indoor decoration.”

5 Familiarity with this case is pre sumed. the masonite back (Br. for Structural I ndustries, Inc., Pl. (“Pl.’s Br.”) at 10), hold the image, glass, and masonite together. Plaintiff markets some or a ll of the subject merchandise under the name “Euro Clip.” (Def.’s Statement of Undisputed Material F acts ¶ 2; Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 2.) For convenienc e, this Court refers to the subject merchandise as the Euro Clip. In 1999, Customs liquidated the Euro Clip under HTSUS tariff item 7013.99.40 4 , if valued not over $0.30 each, and 7013.99.50, if valued over $0.30 e ach but not over $3.00 each. (Pl.’s Br . in Supp. of

Its Mot. for Summ. J. at 1; Mem. i n Supp. of D ef.’s Cr

oss-Mot. f

or Summ. J. at 4.) The

assesse d duty

rates we re 38 per cent ad valorem and 30 pe rcent ad valorem , respectively

. (Id.) Plaintiff filed a protest concernin

g the cl assifica

tion of the

Euro Clip, which Cust

oms denied, a nd Plaintif

f commenced litig ation. (Pl .’s Summons at 1.) Af ter cons idering

the part ies’ briefs, this Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judg ment and granted Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judg ment. Structural Industries, Inc. v. United States , 240 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (CIT 2002) 5 (“ Structura l I ”), rev’d and remanded, Structural Industries, Inc. v. United States , 356 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The CAFC remand manda te directed this Court to hold a hearing on the essential charac ter of the subject merchandise. Structural Industries , 356 F.3d at 1372. This Court held an ev identiar y he aring on Novembe

r 10, 2004 , during

which ea ch party presented one witness. Jamie Hirsh, president of Structural I ndustries, Inc., testified on behalf ofCourt No. 00-00203 Page 4

Pl ai nt if f. (T r. 18 -9 9. ) K el ly E ga n, a f ac t w it ne ss wi th ex pe ri en ce in th e f ra mi ng in du st ry, testified on behalf of Defendant. (Tr. 99-154.) At the Court’s request, the parties submitted post-hearing concurrent brief s on the issue of the classification of the Euro Clip. Having reviewed the evidence presente d at the hearing and the parties’ brie fs and for the reasons following, this Court now holds that wood is the essential character of the Euro Clip. The cor rect classification of the Euro Clip is 4414.00.00.

A GREED F ACTS Prior to the evidentiary he aring, the parties submitted a Pre-Trial Stipulation (“PT Stip.”) of agreed facts. Some releva nt facts are reiterated here for convenience: 1. The imported merchandise is to be classified under [HTSUS] General Rule of Inte rpreta tion 3(b)as if it consisted of the mater

ial or component that give s it its essential character. (PT Stip. ¶ 1.) 2. The subject clip frames are composite goods ma de up of different components. ( Id. at ¶ 2.) 3. The height and width dimensions of the glass cover a nd the masonite back are approximately the same. ( Id. at ¶ 5.) 4. Plaintiff markets the imported merchandise as Euro Clip frames or clip fra mes. ( Id. at ¶ 6.) 5. The articles are accura tely describe d, among other descriptions which may [be] equally ac curate, as “picture holders.” ( Id. at ¶ 7.)Court No. 00-00203 Page 5

6. These picture holders may also be used to display documents or othe r images. (

Id. at ¶ 8.) 7. Other than the metal clips, the articles do not have a border . ( Id. at ¶ 9.) 8. The gla ss covers ( id. at ¶ 10) a nd protec ts ( id. at ¶ 11) the photograph or other image placed in the Euro Clip. 9. For the t

hree size s of Euro C lip at issue , the cost breakdo wn of the componen

ts is as follow s: a) 4"x6": masonite back – 25.3%; glass cover – 24.5%; metal c lips – 50.2%; b) 8"x10": masonite back – 34.3%; glass cover – 33.1%; metal c lips – 32.6%; c) 11"x14": masonite b ack – 37. 7%; gla ss cover – 36.4%; me

tal clips – 25.9%. ( Id. at ¶ 12.) 10. The masonite back is classifiable under HTSUS heading 4421. ( Id. at ¶ 14.) 11. The glass cover is classifiable under HT SUS heading 7006. ( Id. at ¶ 15.)

P ARTIES ’ C ONTENTI ONS I. Plaintiff’s Contentions Plaintiff submits tha

t on the ba sis of GRI

3(b) the whole of the subje ct merchandise is classifi ed as if it

consiste d solely

of the el ement pr

oviding t he essen tial char acter. (Pl.’s Br . at 2 (citi ng Better Home Plastics Corp. v. United States , 119 F.3d 969 (Fe d. Cir. 199 7); The PomeroyCourt No. 00-00203 Page 6

Collection, Ltd. v. United States , 336 F.3d 1370 (Fed Cir. 2003)).) Plaintiff sugg ests four possible alternative HTSUS tariff classifications for the Euro Clip: 1. 4414.00.00 (Pl.’s Br. at 2, 6): Wooden frames for paintings, photog raphs, mirrors or similar objects; 2. 7326.90.85 ( id. at 2): Other articles of iron or steel: Other: Other; 3. 8306.30.00 ( id. at 3, 6, 13 ): Bells , gong s and the l ike, none lectric , of base metal; statuettes and other ornaments, of base metal; photogra ph, picture or similar frames, of base metal; mirrors of base metal; and ba se metal parts thereof: Photograph, picture or similar frames; mirrors; and parts ther eof; and 4. 4421.90.98 ( id. at 2, 6. 13): Other articles of wood: Other: Other: Other. Plaintiff’s primary ar

gument is that the masonite back provides the essential chara cter of the Euro Clip. ( id. at 2, 11.) Plaintiff supports this contention by pointing out that 1. The mason

ite back is thicker than the g

lass ( id. at 4); 2. The Euro Clip cannot be used for its intended purpose without the masonite back ( id. at 5); 3. The ma soni te back preven ts th e image from t wist ing ( id. ); 4. The mason

ite back is indispen sable to the structu re and f unction of

the Euro C lip ( id. at 9); andCourt No. 00-00203 Page 7

5. The mason

ite back makes the

product w

hat it is be cause it

has four slots cut, sized, and aligned in the exact manner to accept the metal c lips, which join the componen

ts ( id. at 10). Upon establishing that wood is the essential character of the Euro Clip, Plaintiff contends that the whole is correctly classified as a frame of wood, or wooden f rame, under tariff item 4414.00.00. (

Id. at 2.) Plaintiff suggests that the Euro Clip, with the essential charac ter of wood, should be c lassifie d as a woo den fra me beca use 1. Plaintiff markets the Euro Clip as a “clip frame” ( id. at 3); 2. Th e E ur o C li p i s d es ig ne d t o b e h un g o n a wa ll , e it he r v er ti ca ll y or ho ri zo nt al ly ( id. at 4); 3. The Euro Clip is intended to display a photog raph or other image in the manner of a frame ( id. at 3, 4); 4. The industry rec ognizes many ty pes of frames, not all of which have borders on four side s ( id. at 5); 5. The Euro Clip is displayed and sold in retailers’ frame departments. ( id. ); and 6. The Euro Clip competes (for sales) with other (more traditional) ty pes of frames ( id. ). Plaintiff alterna tively argue s that if wood is not the essent ial char acter o f the Eur

o Clip then the subject merchandise should be classified based on the e ssential character being the meta l clips (HTSUS 7326.90.85). ( Id. at 2.) To support the alternate theory of classification, PlaintiffCourt No. 00-00203 Page 8

points out that the clips are the only other c omponent (together with the masonite back) nece ssary for the in tended f unction of

the subje ct good s ( id. at 9). If the metal c lips provid

e the ess ential characte

r of the E uro Clip, Pla

intiff al so sugg ests that the subject merchandise may be classified as metal frames under HTSUS tariff item 8306.30.00. (

Id. at 3.) According to Plaintiff, the marketing na me “clip frame” “highlights the significance and importance of the me tal clips” ( id

), and the Euro Clip satisfies the tariff meaning of the te rm “pictu re fra me” of ba se metal ( id. ).

II. Defendant’s Contentions Defendant asserts that the essential chara cter of the Euro Clip is the glass front (Def.’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Post-Trial Br . (“Def.’s Br.”) at 10) a nd defends the classification of the subject merchandise as liquidated – HTSUS tariff item 7013.99.40 or 7013.99.50, depending on value. As support for its contention that the glass component provides the essential cha racter of the subject merchandise, Defendant points to the following inf ormation: 1. The glass element is heavier than the masonite bac k; 2. Th e g la ss el em en t a dd s r ig id it y; 3. The gla ss hel ps pre vent t he mas onit e back f rom wa rping; 4. The gla ss protects the image from UV light, hu midity , dirt, an

d oils; 5. The glass allows the image to be seen w ithout distraction; and 6. The gla ss provide s structur al suppor t.Court No. 00-00203 Page 9

Id. at 18. Ac cording

to Defen dant, the essentia l chara cter analy sis tilts in f

avor of t he glas s component due to consumer expectation. ( Id. at 17.) Defendant states that “the quality, design, purpose, and cut of the glass make it indispensable to the holders and ma kes it central to the product’s appeal to the viewer.” ( Id. at 18.) Defendant also deems that the masonite back is not visible to the viewer as an important factor in the essential chara cter analy sis. (

Id. at 21.) Defend ant further arg

ues that the Euro Clip

cannot be

classifi ed as a “

wooden f rame” in HTSUS heading 4414 because it lacks a wood borde r surrounding the image. ( Id. at 12.) However, Defendant suggests that Euro Clip is a “glass frame.” ( Id. at 13 n.10 , 17.) Thu s, it should be classified as such in HTSUS heading 7013. ( Id. at 13 n.10.) Last ly, Defend

ant appe als to this Co

urt to app ly G

RI 3( c) in cla ssify

ing the E uro Clip if the Court cannot otherwise find that glass imparts the essential char acter. ( Id. at 21.) According to Defendant, as between the two components of the Eur o Clip requiring equal consideration, the glass front and masonite back, Defenda nt points out that the classification of the glass cover appears last in numerical order in the HTSUS. ( Id. at 22.) Thus, classification in that tariff provision would be required by GRI 3(c). (

Id. )

D ISCU SSI ON Tariff classification is governed by the HTSUS General Rules of Inter pretation (“GRI”). Orlando Food Corp. v. United States , 140 F.3d 1437, 1439 (Fed. Cir. 1998). GRI 3 governs the classifi cation of

goods that are c lassifia

ble under two or mor

e headin gs, whic h this Court

in Structural I determined the Euro Clip to be. Structura l I , 240 F. Supp . 2d at 1332 . The CAFCCourt No. 00-00203 Page 10

6 Although this definition of “essential character” a pplied to the predecessor to the HTSUS – the Tariff Schedule of the United States (TSUS), later courts have been guided by TSUS cases that interpreted tariff terms substantially similar those found in the HTSUS. Cf. Better Home Plastics Corp. v. United States , 20 CIT 221, 224, 916 F. Supp. 1265, 1267 (1996); Toy Biz, Inc. v. United States , 219 F. Supp. 2d 1289, 1301 (CIT 2002). did not disagree with this finding. According to GRI 3(b), “[m]ixtures, composite goods consisting

of diffe rent mate rials or made up of

differe nt compone

nts, . . . sha

ll be clas sified as

if they consisted of the mate rial or component which gives them their essentia l charact er . . . .” (emphasis added). The “essential character” of an article is “that which is indispensable to the structure, core or condition of the article, i.e., what it is.” United China & Glass Co. v. United States , 61 Cust. Ct. 386, C.D. 3637, 293 F. Supp. 734, 737 (1968). 6 Further, “the exis tence of other ma terials which impart something to the article ought not to preclude a n attempt to isolate the most outstanding and distinctive characteristic of the article . . . .” Canadian Vinyl Indus., Inc. v. United States , 76 Cust. Ct. 1, 3, C.D. 4626, 408 F. Supp. 1377, 1378 (1976) (emphasis added). In addition, the Harmonized Tariff Sy stem Explanatory Notes (“EN” ), while not binding on the Court, may be instructive a nd helpful in determining the scope and interpretation of tar iff terms. Len-Ron Mfg. Co., Inc. v. United States , 334 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2003). According to the EN, the factor that determines the essential char acter of an article will vary between different goods. Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding Syste m, Explanatory Notes , Rule 3(b), Vol. 1, p.4 (3d ed. 2002). Essential character ma y “be de termined by the natur

e of the material or component, its bulk, quantity, weig ht or value, or by the

role of a constituent material in relation to the use of the goods.” Id.Court No. 00-00203 Page 11

None of the factors is conclusive, and the list set forth in the EN is not exhaustive. I t is the responsi bility of this Cour

t to consid

er the to tality

of the ev idence p ut befor e it in maki

ng its ruling. Thus, det

ermining the esse ntial cha racter of an ar ticle re quires a

fact-in tensive a naly sis. Toy Biz, Inc. v. United States , 219 F. Supp. 1289, 1301 (CIT 2002). In every tariff classification decision, it is this Court’s imperative to reach the corre ct result, r egard less of the

competin g tarif f items put

forwar d by the part ies. See Jarvis Clark Co. v. United States , 733 F.2d 873 (Fed. Cir. 1984). A classification decision require s two steps. Orlando Food Corp. , 140 F.3d at 1439. The first step is for the court to discern the proper meaning of tariff provisions. Id. The second step is for the court to determine the particular tariff provision into which the subject goods fall. Id. In the instant ma

tter, this analy sis requir es this Court to, first, determine the essential character of the E uro Clip and, second, decide the correct tariff c lassific ation for

the goo ds.

I. The metal clips do not provide the classification of the Euro Clip. Neither party

argues convincingly

that the metal clips should be regarded as the esse ntial character of subject mercha ndise, and the court does not find sua sponte reason t o do so. While this Court r

ecogn izes that e ach comp onent of t he Euro Cl ip is nece ssary for the a rticle to serve its intended function, that fact does not preclude a finding that one component represents the essential character of the g ood. “[T]he existence of other materials which impart something to the article ought not to preclude an attempt to isolate the most outstanding and distinctiveCourt No. 00-00203 Page 12

characteristic of the article and to dete ct the component material responsible for that ‘essential characteristic.’” Canadian Vinyl , 76 Cust. Ct. at 3, 408 F. Supp. at 1378. Althoug h the name

of the sub

ject mer chandise would suggest the

releva nce of the clips, the product is not identified by them, but rathe r is identified and used as a frame or imag e holder. In fa ct, Defe ndant off ers and t his Court a

ccepts t hat the ma

nner by which the

Euro Clip is

held together is not important to the essential character a nalysis. (Def.’ s Br. at 19 (citing EN 70.13, 70.06).) Further, the bulk and weight of the c lips are clearly less than that of the glass and masonite back. Although the cost of the clips for the small (4" x 6") f rame is greater than that of the glass and masonite back, this Court has previously recognized that, while it takes the relative cost of component parts into consideration, cost alone is not dispositive and may not be persuasive in light of competing arg uments. Better Home Plastics , 20 CIT at 225, 916 F. Supp. at 1268. Based on the totality of the evidence before it, this Court finds that the contribution of the metal clips is not significant enough to impart the essential chara cter of the Euro Clip.

II. The glass cover does not impart the essential character of the Euro Clip. According to the EN, “[a]rticles of glass combined with other materials (base metal, wood, etc. ) are clas sifie d in [H TSUS h eadi ng 70 13] onlyif the glass gives the whole the char acter of glass articles.” EN, Heading 70.13, Vol. 3, p.1168 (emphasis original). The “essential char acter” standard and the “whole characte r” standard stated in the EN are the same. Pomeroy , 336 F.3d at 1373. Contrary to the position Defenda nt suggests, the glass cover a lso does not provide the Euro Clip’s essential character.Court No. 00-00203 Page 13

7 During the evidentiary

hearing, Plaintiff presented exhibits – Plaintiff’s Exhibits 4R and 5R – as examples of how the Euro Clip might be used without the glass cover. This Court finds most significant that the Euro Clip can function without the glass cover. While the image dis

play ed may suffer some dama

ge or c urling, the Euro C lip could nonethele ss be used to display an imag e on a wall – its primary pur pose – without the glass cover. 7 If the subject me

rchandi se can be

used appropriate ly a

nd adequ ately without one

of its comp onents, th

is Court is not convinced that the nonessential component – in this instance, the glass – may impart the essential character of the ar ticle. Defendant placed gre at emphasis on the possibility that the masonite back may warp and render the Euro C lip unusab le. This Co urt is not swayed by

this arg ument. The

glass is at least equally, if not more, prone to damage from breakag e or scratches that might also diminish the usefulness of the Euro Clip. Defendant also pointed out the UV protection that the glass provides. The primary f

unction of the Euro Clip is to display an image rather than protect it from sunlight. Thus, this argument, too, is not persuasive. The Court also considered that, althoug h perhaps slightly heavier

than the masonite back, the glass is thinner. In light of these fa

ctors, the Court concludes that the glass, too, does not provide the essential character of the Euro Clip.

III. The masonite back is the essential character of the Euro Clip. This Court finds that the masonite back imparts the essential character of the Euro Clip. Without the masonite back, the Euro Clip could not perform its primary obje ctive: to displayCourt No. 00-00203 Page 14

8 This Court a

cknowle dges De fendant ’s sugg estion tha t the full value of t

he glas s component is not included in the cost breakdown provided to the court. (Def.’ s Br. at 4, ¶ 13.) However, because value is only one of the factors weighing in favor of the masonite back as the essentia l chara cter an d not the de

terminat e factor, this Cour

t is rely ing on the only specific cost data bef ore it. images on a wall. The masonite back, thus, provides the cor e or structure of the subject merchandise. See United China , 61 Cust. Ct. at 389, 29 3 F. Supp. at 737. The masonite back is distinctiv e in that it

is desig ned spec ifically

to accom modate the metal c lips; it has groove s cut in the back into which the clips fit. In this way , the masonite back is indispensable to the structure and function of the Euro Clip. However, even without the clips, the masonite back mig ht be used to display images if such we

re aff ixed by another means ( i.e. , with tape, glue, or other adhesive). Further, the masonite back provides the stability, support, and rigidity ne cessary to meet the article’s purpose and prevent the imag e from twisting. In addition, the masonite bac k has more bulk than the glass, in that it is thicker, and it certainly has more bulk than the clips. For the two larger size frames, the masonite back a lso represents the greatest value c omponent of the Euro Clip. 8 Becau se the ma sonite ba ck is the only

componen

t indispen sable for the Eur o Clip to perform its intended function and because it provides nece ssary support and stability for the Euro Clip to be used to display images, this Court deems the masonite ba ck as the essential character of the subje ct good s.Court No. 00-00203 Page 15

IV. The Euro Clip is properly classified in tariff item 4414.00.00. Having decided that the essential chara cter of the Euro Clip is the masonite back, the Court must now determine under which tariff provision of HTSUS chapter 44 the subject mercha ndise is pr

operly classifi ed. Tar

iff items 4 414.00.00

(wooden frames f or paintin gs, photographs, mirrors or similar objects) and 4421.90.98 (other ar ticles of wood: other: other: other) are under consideration. Once the essentia l chara cter of an artic le has be en deter

mined, the

whole of the artic le is to be classified as if it consisted of the element that imparts the essential chara cter. See Better Home Plastics , 20 CIT a t 2 26, 916 F. S upp . at 126 8. In Pomeroy, the cour t determi ned that a glass insert provided the essential character of the composite good in question (an iron pedestal with a glass insert). Pomeroy, 336 F.3d 1370. The plaintiff argued that the composite good should be classified as the glass insert would be classified if imported sepa rately. Id. at 1372. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument a nd stated that “the goods were imported as functional lamps, not nonfunctioning glass vessels. And . . . goods must be classified in the form in which they are imported . . . .” Id. (emph asis a dded) (inte rnal ci tati ons om itte d). In fur ther cl arifying Pomeroy , the CAFC stated that “[a]lthough the ‘essential character’ inquiry focuses on a n individual component of the goods, the goods are not c lassified as though they were composed exclusively of that component.” Structural Industries , 356 F.3d at 1369. This Court adopts the reasoning in Pomeroy . The Euro Clip is imported not as a piece of wood that – imported alone – would be classifiable in HTSUS heading 4421. Rather, the E uro Clip is imported as a finished article that is on its whole a frame.Court No. 00-00203 Page 16

The common meaning

of a tar iff term is a quest ion of law

to be dec ided by

the cour t. Schott Optical Glass, Inc. v. United States , 11 CIT 899, 905, 678 F. Supp. 882, 887 (1987), aff’d 862 F. 2d 866 (Fed. C ir. 19 88) (ci ting Schott Optical Glass, Inc. v. United States , 82 Cust. Ct. 11, 16, C.D. 4783, 468 F. Supp. 1318, 1321 (1979)). When construing tariff terms, the court may look to common and commercial meanings. The Mead Corp. v. United States , 283 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fe d. Cir. 200 2). To as certain the common meaning

of a tar iff term , the cour

t may refer to dictionaries, scientific authorities, and similarly reliable resources. Id. A “frame” is defined as (1) “[s]omething composed of parts fitted and joined together,” or (2) “[a] structure that gives shape or support.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language720 (3rd ed., Houghton Mifflin Co. 1996). Similarly, a “f rame” is “something composed of parts fitted together and united.” Web ster’s Ne w Collegiate

Dictionar

y452 (8th ed., G. & C. Merriam Co. 1981). The Euro Clip is a combination of three parts fitted together by metal clips to form something, namely a

n article by whic

h images are display

ed. Further, the Euro Clip gives support to the image being display ed and defines the shape by limiting the size of the image based on the size of the

glass a nd masonit

e compone

nts. For t hese re asons, thi s Court fin ds that the

Euro Clip is consistent with the common meaning of the term “frame.” Althoug h an impor

ter’s ma rketing of an imported item

does not di ctate its

classifi cation, i

t is relevant to the proper classification. Mead, 283 F.3d at 1349. T

he Euro Cl ip is marke

ted as a clip frame. Further, it is sold by retailers in the same department as more traditional (borde red) frames. It is a

lso used by

consumer

s in the man

ner of a frame to display art, phot ographs,Court No. 00-00203 Page 17

documents, or other images. This Court finds these factors persuasive and indicative that the common and commercial meanings of the tariff term “frame” encompass the Euro Clip. This Court finds disingenuous Defendant’s argument that the Eur o Clip is analogous to a glass frame but not to a wood frame. (De f.’s Br. at 13 n.10.) By Defendant’s definition of a frame, the border, or surround, would determine the article’s classification. Because the Euro Clip does not have a border, it is no more analogous to a gla ss frame than a wood one. However, that does not change the Cour

t’s position that the

Euro Clip w

ith the ess ential characte

r of wood is properly c lassified in HTSUS heading 4414.

C ONCLUSI ON For the reasons stated herein, this Court finds that the proper cla ssification of the Euro Clip is 4414. 00.00. Ac cordingly, this Court d irects Cu stoms to re liquidate the entr ies subje ct to this liti gation consi stent with this rulin g.

/s/ Gregory W. Carman Gregory W. Carman Judge
Dated: February

15, 2005 New York, New York